 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mantelli1/29/2002
reat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not unconstitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force." Id. Thus, it should be clear that under Garner the constitutionality of deadly force statutes should not be considered in the abstract; instead, courts should focus on the constitutionality of specific applications of a challenged statute to specific factual circumstances. Finally, Garner rejected the felony-misdemeanor distinction as a guide for deciding when deadly force may be used.
In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989), the Court clarified its holding in Garner and ruled that excessive force claims brought against police officers are to be analyzed under the "objective reasonableness" standard of the Fourth Amendment. The Court cautioned that the "proper application" of this reasonableness standard "requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. With these facts and circumstances in mind, " he `reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." Id. The Court emphasized that this is an objective standard "without regard to [the actual officer's] underlying intent or motivation." Id. at 387.
D. Section 30-2-6
Section 30-2-6, "Justifiable homicide by public officer or public employee," has evolved in response to the Supreme Court's pronouncements on the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers. (Emphasis omitted.) Specifically, the Legislature added Section 30-2-6(B), in response to Garner. Johnson, 1998-NMCA-019, 11. Section 30-2-6 provides in pertinent part:
A. Homicide is justifiable when committed by a public officer or public employee or those acting by their command and in their aid and assistance:
(2) when necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process or to the discharge of any other legal duty;
(3) when necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or who have escaped or when necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice; or
(4) when necessarily committed in order to prevent the escape of a felon from any place of lawful custody or confinement.
B. For the purposes of this section, homicide is necessarily committed when a public officer or public employee has probable cause to believe he or another is threatened with serious harm or deadly force while performing those lawful duties described in this section. Whenever feasible, a public officer or employee should give warning prior to using deadly force.
Section 30-2-6(B) requirement that a homicide be "necessarily committed" places a limit on the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers in New Mexico that was envisioned in Garner. In remarkably similar language, the Garner court stated:
Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11-12.
Under Section 30-2-6, the crucial consideration is the conduct and dangerousness of the suspect, not the classification of the crime that he or sh
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|